Content uploaded by Kristen P Mark
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kristen P Mark on Oct 02, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [University of Kentucky], [Kristen P. Mark]
On: 21 June 2013, At: 02:04
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Sexual and Relationship Therapy
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csmt20
The impact of sexual compatibility on
sexual and relationship satisfaction in
a sample of young adult heterosexual
couples
Kristen P. Marka, Robin R. Milhausenb & Scott B. Maitlandb
a Department of Kinesiology & Health Promotion, University of
Kentucky, Lexington, United States
b Department of Family Relations and Human Development,
University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada
Published online: 19 Jun 2013.
To cite this article: Kristen P. Mark, Robin R. Milhausen & Scott B. Maitland (2013): The impact of
sexual compatibility on sexual and relationship satisfaction in a sample of young adult heterosexual
couples, Sexual and Relationship Therapy, DOI:10.1080/14681994.2013.807336
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2013.807336
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
The impact of sexual compatibility on sexual and relationship
satisfaction in a sample of young adult heterosexual couples
Kristen P. Mark
a
, Robin R. Milhausen
b
and Scott B. Maitland
b
a
Department of Kinesiology & Health Promotion, University of Kentucky, Lexington, United States;
b
Department of Family Relations and Human Development, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada
(Received 12 March 2013; final version received 16 May 2013)
The associations between sexual compatibility and sexual and relationship satisfaction
were examined in a sample of 133 college-age heterosexual couples. Hierarchical
regression analyses were conducted to assess the relationship between two types of
sexual compatibility (actual sexual compatibility and perceived sexual compatibility)
and sexual and relationship satisfaction. Age, length of relationship, and satisfaction
were included as covariates in the hierarchical regression analyses. Couple difference
scores from four subscales of the Sexual Excitation/Sexual Inhibition Inventory used
to measure actual sexual compatibility, and women’s and men’s Hurlbert’s Index of
Sexual Compatibility scores measuring perceived sexual compatibility were included
as predictors of sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction in the analyses. The
strongest predictor of sexual satisfaction, after accounting for relationship satisfaction,
was perceived sexual compatibility. Similarly, the strongest predictor of relationship sat-
isfaction, after accounting for sexual satisfaction, was perceived sexual compatibility.
The final models predicting sexual satisfaction accounted for 66% of the variance in
the women’s model and 75% of the variance in the men’s model. The final models pre-
dicting relationship satisfaction accounted for 20% of the variance in the women’s
model and 27% of the variance in the men’s model. Perception of sexual compatibility
may be more important to couple satisfaction than actual sexual compatibility of specific
sexual acts.
Keywords: sexual compatibility; perceived compatibility; sexual satisfaction; rela-
tionship satisfaction; heterosexual couples
Introduction
The intertwined nature of sexual and relationship satisfaction has been supported through
research (Apt, Hurlbert, Pierce, & White, 1996a; Byers, 2001; Hurlbert & Apt, 1994;
Yeh, Lorenz, Wickrama, Conger, & Elder, 2006), and by therapists (Sprecher, 2002).
Although evidence suggests that relationship and sexual satisfaction are linked, this link
may be influenced by other variables (McCabe, 1999). For example, duration of partner-
ship has been found to influence levels of satisfaction (Klusmann, 2002) and desire (Murray
& Milhausen, 2012) within a relationship. However, these results regarding satisfaction
and desire were both based on individual reports, capturing only one member of the
dyad’s perception of satisfaction in the relationship. Sexual and relationship satisfaction
are consistently correlated with frequency of penile–vaginal intercourse and orgasm
(Brody, 2010; Brody & Weiss, 2011; Costa & Brody, 2007; Philippsohn & Hartmann,
2009; Tao & Brody, 2011), but not necessarily with the frequency of other sexual activity.
Other variables that have been considered in association with sexual and relationship
*Corresponding author. Email: kristen.mark@uky.edu
Ó2013 College of Sexual and Relationship Therapists
Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2013.807336
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky], [Kristen P. Mark] at 02:04 21 June 2013
satisfaction include: communication (Byers & Demmons, 1999; Cupach & Comstock,
1990; Egeci & Gencoz, 2006; Fowers & Olson, 1989), attachment (Butzer & Campbell,
2008), emotional awareness (Croyle & Waltz, 2002), psychosocial well-being (Apt, Hurl-
bert, Sarmiento, & Hurlbert, 1996b), and personality factors (Fisher & McNulty, 2008;
Gattis, Berns, Simpson, & Christensen, 2004). However, level of actual compatibility
(i.e., compatibility of factors that impact arousal) and perceived sexual compatibility
have not yet been examined with regard to their efficacy in predicting sexual and relation-
ship satisfaction.
It is important to note the difference between actual sexual compatibility and
perceived sexual compatibility. Actual sexual compatibility is the extent to which similar-
ities exist between actual turn-ons and turn-offs for each partner. Perceived sexual com-
patibility is a reflection of the extent to which individuals perceive their partners to share
sexual beliefs, preferences, needs, and desires (Offman & Matheson, 2005). Sexual com-
patibility is achieved when members of a dyad share similar sexual desires, behaviours,
likes, and dislikes (Purnine & Carey, 1997). It has been operationalized as similarity in
the emotional, cognitive, and behavioural components of a sexual relationship (Apt et al.,
1996a). The emotional component is experienced as feeling sexually understood by a
partner. The cognitive component is composed of similarity in terms of sexual beliefs,
desires, and attitudes. Research suggests that perceived sexual compatibility is signifi-
cantly related to sexual satisfaction (Smith, Becker, Byren, & Przbylia, 1993) and sexual
agreement (Purnine & Carey, 1997). Researchers have found that sexual satisfaction can-
not be achieved when one partner desires the same activity that the other partner dislikes
(Heino & Ojanlatva, 2000).
Compatibility research has, for the most part, examined perceived compatibility by
assessing only one partner in a dyadic relationship, thus excluding potentially important
information. For example, Hurlbert, Apt, and Rombough (1996) found that perceived sex-
ual compatibility was associated with sexual desire in women, but participants’ male part-
ners were not included in the analysis. In another study on women, Hurlbert, Apt,
Hurlbert, and Pierce (2000) collected data from women with hypoactive sexual desire dis-
order and measured perceived sexual compatibility. They found that women who felt sex-
ually compatible with their partners experienced less depression and sexual stress,
reported greater levels of sexual desire and motivation, and were more positive about sex-
ual fantasy. Also, women who felt compatible with their partners sexually were more
motivated to be sexual than those who felt sexually incompatible with their partner.
Some additional research has suggested that the extent to which perceived sexual
compatibility affects other aspects of the sexual relationship may differ for women and
men. Since women have been found to relate sexual satisfaction and emotional closeness
in the relationship (Hurlbert, Apt, & Rabehl, 1993), women may, more than men, value
sexual compatibility. They may view sexual compatibility as an index of the overall level
of intimacy within the relationship (Offman & Matheson, 2005). However, if compatibil-
ity is examined in terms of desired frequency of sexual intercourse, it may be just as
important for men. Nicolosi, Moreira, Villa, and Glasser (2004) found that, in men, com-
patibility in terms of desired frequency of sexual intercourse was a good predictor of sex-
ual functioning. Offman and Matheson (2005) found that for both men and women, both
partner- and self-perception of sexual compatibility were predictive of sexual satisfaction.
Although the relationship between sexual compatibility and sexual satisfaction, and, to
a lesser extent, relationship satisfaction, have been addressed in the literature, this research
is limited in a number of ways. First, a great deal of research in this area has incorporated
only women or clinical samples (e.g., Apt et al., 1996a; Ellis, 1953; Hurlbert et al., 1996;
2K.P. Mark et al.
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky], [Kristen P. Mark] at 02:04 21 June 2013
Hurlbert et al., 2000). In some of the earliest research on sexual compatibility, Ellis (1953)
suggested that one of the main sources of sexual incompatibility was inconsistent preferen-
ces for specific sexual acts between partners. Despite this early finding, no research to date
has examined compatibility in terms of factors that inhibit or enhance sexual arousal and
how this might impact sexual and relationship satisfaction. Further, no research has investi-
gated the relationship between sexual compatibility and sexual and relationship satisfaction
while studying both members of a dyad, yet researchers have long suggested that under-
standing one member of the dyad without the context of the other member of the dyad is
missing a large amount of information (Kerr & Bowen, 1988).
The purpose of the current study was to investigate the influence of sexual compatibil-
ity and perceived sexual compatibility on sexual and relationship satisfaction in a non-
clinical sample of committed, heterosexual couples.
Using dyadic data and an innovative and unique measure of sexual compatibility, the
current study answered the following research questions:
(1) Which type of sexual compatibility (actual or perceived) better predicts sexual
satisfaction after controlling for age, relationship duration, and relationship
satisfaction?
(2) Which type of sexual compatibility (actual or perceived) better predicts relationship
satisfaction after controlling for age, relationship duration, and sexual satisfaction?
Methodology
Participants
Participants were 133 couples who had been in their current monogamous relationship for
no less than 12 months. Participants were recruited through classroom visits by the
researcher at a mid-sized university in Southwestern Ontario, posters were put up in high-
traffic areas of the University campus, emails were sent to various departments at the uni-
versity, along with an online classified advertisement (thecannon.ca), and a recruitment
page on a social networking website (Facebook.com). Participants were asked to respond
only if they were currently in a monogamous heterosexual relationship of no less than 12
months. Additionally, potential participants were informed that an incentive of being
entered into a draw for one of three $50 gift cards would be offered for involvement in
the study and that both members of the couple were required to participate online, inde-
pendently of their partner.
Procedure
All potential participants were directed to send an email to the researcher if they met the
eligibility and were interested in participating. Once interest was expressed, the
researcher confirmed the participant was currently in a heterosexual relationship for a
minimum of 12 months, and that their partner was also willing to participate. Following
this, a link to the survey was sent to both members of the dyad individually supplying
them with linked (to keep the dyad together for analysis purposes) but unique identifica-
tion codes that were required to access the survey. A reminder email was sent to partici-
pants who did not access the survey within two weeks of the initial email. Once the
participants completed the questionnaire, they were presented with the option to click on
a link that would take them to a separate website where they could enter their name and
phone number to be eligible for one of three $50 gift cards to a restaurant of their choice.
Sexual and Relationship Therapy 3
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky], [Kristen P. Mark] at 02:04 21 June 2013
The study used a web-based data collection method. Internet surveys provide a more
comfortable environment to collect data on sensitive issues such as sexuality, and there-
fore it was thought that couples would be more likely to disclose accurate sexual informa-
tion online (Mustanski, 2001). Also, Internet data have been found to be equivalent to
traditional data collection methods in terms of validity and reliability, and online data col-
lection is a more efficient way of gathering questionnaire data (Meyerson & Tryon, 2003).
Measures
Demographic information, such as age, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation were col-
lected in addition to relationship characteristics such as length of relationship, whether
the couple was living together or in a long-distance relationship, and whether either mem-
ber of the couple had any children.
Sexual satisfaction was measured using the Index of Sexual Satisfaction (ISS;Hudson,
Harrison, & Crosscup, 1981). The ISS is a 25-item scale that measures the level of sexual
satisfaction in the context of a romantic relationship. This scale has shown very good reli-
ability with a Cronbach’s alpha score of .92 and a test–retest reliability coefficient of .93
(Davies, Katz, & Jackson, 1999). In the current sample, the alpha for this measure was .92
for women and .89 for men and higher scores represented greater sexual satisfaction.
Relationship satisfaction was measured using the Satisfaction Subscale of the Dyadic
Adjustment Scale (DAS-S; Spanier, 1976). The DAS-S is a 10-item subscale that measures
the level of relationship satisfaction in a romantic relationship. Hunsley, Pinsent, Lefeb-
vre, James-Tanner, and Vito (1995) reported high internal consistency reliability of the
DAS-S with a Cronbach’s alpha of .82 and found the scale was significantly positively
correlated with other measures of relationship satisfaction in women (r¼.76) and men
(r¼.77). In the current study, the alpha for the DAS-S was .77 for women and .79 for
men and higher scores were indicative of greater relationship satisfaction.
Perceived sexual compatibility was measured using the Hurlbert Index of Sexual Com-
patibility (HISC; Hurlbert et al., 1993). The HISC is a 25-item questionnaire that assesses
an individual’s perception of their sexual compatibility in their current relationship. It has
adequate construct, predictive, and discriminant validity. In addition, test–retest reliability
(r¼.87) and internal consistency (r¼.83) were both strong in a study by Apt et al.
(1996a). In the current study, the Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .91 for women
and .88 for men and higher scores represented greater perceived sexual compatibility.
Actual sexual compatibility was measured using three subscales of the Sexual Excita-
tion and Sexual Inhibition Inventory for Women and Men (SESII-W/M; Milhausen,
Graham, Sanders, Yarber, & Maitland, 2010). The SESII-W/M assesses propensity for
sexual excitation and sexual inhibition in response to a variety of individual, relational,
and environmental factors. The measure is composed of 30 items grouped into 6 subscales.
The three subscales selected for use in the current study were: Arousability (SESII-A),
Setting (SESII-S),andRelationship Importance (SESII-RI). These three subscales were
selected because they assess a range of sexual stimuli and situations that might be present
in a typical couple relationship, and are directly relevant to sexual compatibility.
The Arousability subscale consists of items related to ease of arousability to various
sexual stimuli. The SESII-A contains five items. In Milhausen (2004), the Cronbach’s
alpha for the Arousability subscale was reported to be .72. In the current study, the
Cronbach’s alpha for the Arousability subscale was .63 for women and .68 for men. The
Setting subscale measures the extent to which an individual is aroused by engaging in sex-
ual activity in a novel or unconcealed setting. The SESII-S contains four items. In
4K.P. Mark et al.
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky], [Kristen P. Mark] at 02:04 21 June 2013
Milhausen (2004) the Cronbach’s alpha for the Setting subscale was .75. In the current
study, the Cronbach’s alpha for the Setting subscale was .73 for women and .75 for men.
The Relationship Importance subscale assesses the degree to which participants’ arousal
is dependent upon being in a relationship that is characterized by emotional security,
trust, and fidelity. The SESII-RI contains five items. In Milhausen (2004) the Cronbach’s
alpha for the Relationship Importance subscale was .75. In the current study, the
Cronbach’s alpha for the Relationship Importance subscale was .72 for women and .74
for men.
For the purposes of the current study, actual sexual compatibility was calculated by
computing an absolute difference score (absolute value of each man’s score on the subscale
subtracted from his partner’s score on the subscale) for each of the three subscales. As
such, higher difference scores indicated greater discrepancy between women and men on
the particular subscale. Prior research has indicated that difference scores are most appro-
priate for exploratory research (Lubatkin, Vengroff, Ndiaye, & Veiga, 1999), and provide
both reliable and unbiased outcomes (Smith & Tisak, 1993; Tisak & Smith, 1994).
Data analyses
Four hierarchical multiple regression analyses with sexual satisfaction (ISS) and relation-
ship satisfaction (DAS-S) variables as dependent variables and measures of actual sexual
compatibility (SESII-A,SESII-S, and SESII-RI) and perceived sexual compatibility
(HISC) as the independent variables were conducted. Aside from the difference scores
used that utilized scores from both members of the couple, all analyses were conducted
for men and women separately to protect against possible biasing effects due to the non-
independence of data obtained from participants in a relationship with one another
(Kenny, 1996; Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006) and due to possible gender differences in
the outcome and predictor variables.
In the models predicting sexual satisfaction, age, relationship duration, and relation-
ship satisfaction were used as covariates and entered into the first block. In the models
predicting relationship satisfaction, age, relationship duration, and sexual satisfaction
were used as covariates and entered into the first block. The second block of all regression
models contained the three actual sexual compatibility variables and the perceived sexual
compatibility variable. Age was controlled for as previous research has suggested that
age has been associated with more negative sexual attitudes, less sexual desire, and less
sexual activity (Katz & Marshall, 2003; Purifoy, Grodsky, & Gimbra, 1992). Previous
research has also suggested that as duration of partnership increases, level of sexual desire
and frequency of sexual activity decrease (Johnson, Wadsworth, Wellings, & Field, 1994;
Klusmann, 2002; Murray & Milhausen, 2012). Given that prior research has supported
the interrelated nature of sexual and relationship satisfaction (Apt et al., 1996a; Byers,
2001; Hurlbert & Apt, 1994; Yeh et al., 2006), relationship satisfaction (DAS-S) was con-
trolled for in models predicting sexual satisfaction and sexual satisfaction (ISS) was con-
trolled for in models predicting relationship satisfaction.
Results
Participant characteristics
Women ranged in age from 18 to 37 with a mean age of 21.87 (SD ¼3.17), men ranged in
age from 19 to 41 with a mean age of 23.04 (SD ¼4.09); men were significantly older
Sexual and Relationship Therapy 5
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky], [Kristen P. Mark] at 02:04 21 June 2013
than women, t(264) ¼2.60, p<.05. The majority of the participants identified as Cauca-
sian/White (85.3%); there were no significant gender differences for race/ethnicity.
The participants were in their current relationship for a minimum of one year and a
maximum of 14 years (M¼4.32 years, SD ¼3.13). All the couples indicated that they
were in a heterosexual relationship at the time of data collection and although the major-
ity of the sample individually identified as heterosexual (95.1%), a minority of partici-
pants identified as bisexual (1.5%), queer (.8%), and uncertain or questioning (.8%). Of
the 133 couples, 32 couples (23.7%) were living together at the time of data collection
and 101 couples (76.3%) were not living together. Almost one-half of the participants
(41.8%) self-reported they were in a long distance relationship with their partner, and
58.3% of the participants were not. The majority of the participants did not have children
(98.1%), although five participants (1.9%) did report that they or their partner had
children.
Women and men were comparable to one another in terms of sexual and relationship
satisfaction. Sexual satisfaction scores between women (M¼147.7, SD ¼16.6) and men
(M¼146.4, SD ¼17.4), measured by the ISS, were not significantly different, t(264) ¼
.6, p¼.55. Relationship satisfaction scores between women (M¼40.9, SD ¼4.1) and
men (M¼40.3, SD ¼4.9), measured by the DAS-S, were also not significantly different,
t(264) ¼1.1, p¼.28. Within women (r¼.42, p<.001) and men (r¼.51, p<.001),
sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction were significantly correlated.
On the measure of perceived sexual compatibility (HISC), women (M¼81.0, SD ¼
10.8) scored slightly higher than men (M¼78.0, SD ¼12.1) and although minimal, this
difference was statistically significant, t(264) ¼2.1, p<.05.
With regard to arousal, men scored significantly higher than women on the Arousabil-
ity subscale (SESII-A)(M¼15.25, SD ¼2.30 vs. (M¼13.74, SD ¼2.45) and on the Set-
ting subscale (SESII-S)(M¼11.61, SD ¼2.33 vs. M¼10.55, SD ¼2.36). Negative raw
difference scores on the measures used to assess sexual compatibility in terms of Arous-
ability (M¼1.5, SD ¼3.1) and Setting (M¼1.1, SD ¼3.2) indicated that women
were less easily aroused by sexual stimuli and were less aroused by engaging in sexual
behaviour in a novel or unconcealed environment than were men. On the Relationship
Importance subscale (SESII-RI), women (M¼14.70, SD ¼2.80) scored significantly
higher than men (M¼11.99, SD ¼2.97). Positive raw difference scores for the compati-
bility measures of Relationship Importance (M¼2.7, SD ¼3.9) indicated that being in a
relationship characterized by trust and intimacy was more important for women’s sexual
arousal than for men’s. The correlations between all variables of interest are presented in
Table 1.
Four hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted to predict women’s sexual sat-
isfaction, men’s sexual satisfaction, women’s relationship satisfaction, and men’s rela-
tionship satisfaction. All models had significant predictive power: women’s sexual
satisfaction, Adjusted R
2
¼.66, F(7, 132) ¼36.94, p<.001; women’s relationship satis-
faction, Adjusted R
2
¼.20, F(7, 132) ¼5.78, p<.001; men’s sexual satisfaction,
Adjusted R
2
¼.75, F(7, 132) ¼58.18, p<.001; and men’s relationship satisfaction,
Adjusted R
2
¼.27, F(7, 132) ¼8.00, p<.001.
Sexual Satisfaction. For women, the first block of the model was significant and
accounted for 19% of the variance, F(3, 132) ¼10.98, p<.001. In block two, after con-
trolling for age, relationship duration, and relationship satisfaction, perceived sexual com-
patibility significantly predicted sexual satisfaction in women and the model accounted
for 66% of the variance in sexual satisfaction, accounting for an additional 47% of vari-
ance from the preceding model. None of the difference scores measuring actual sexual
6K.P. Mark et al.
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky], [Kristen P. Mark] at 02:04 21 June 2013
compatibility were significant predictors; perceived sexual compatibility was the only sig-
nificant predictor of ISS scores for women (b¼.77, p<.001). As scores on perceived
sexual compatibility increased, women were more likely to report being sexually satis-
fied. Regression values for both blocks are displayed in Table 2.
For men, the first block of the model was significant and accounted for 25% of the
variance F(3, 132) ¼15.96, p<.001. In block two, after controlling for age, relationship
duration, and relationship satisfaction, perceived sexual compatibility significantly pre-
dicted sexual satisfaction and the model accounted for 75% of the variance in sexual satis-
faction, an increase in 50% of variance from the previous model. None of the difference
scores measuring actual sexual compatibility were significant predictors; perceived sexual
compatibility was the only significant predictor of ISS scores for men (b¼.83, p<.001).
As scores on perceived sexual compatibility increased, men were more likely to report
higher levels of sexual satisfaction. Regression values for both blocks are presented in
Table 2.
Table 1. Correlations between predictor variables and outcome variables in women and men.
1
ISS W
2
ISS M
3
DAS-S W
4
DAS-S M
5
SC W
6
SC M
7
SESII-A
8
SESII-S
9
SESII-RI
1–
2 .48
–
3 .42
.18
–
4 .33
.51
.58
–
5 .81
.46
.45
.36
–
6 .47
.87
.30
.52
.52
–
7.16 .05 .07 .06 .13 .05 –
8.04 .01 .07 .01 .12 .07 .21
–
9.08 .01 .16 .06 .13 .04 .06 .21
–
Note: p<.05
,p<.01
,p<.001
.W¼women; M¼men; ISS ¼sexual satisfaction; DAS-S ¼relationship
satisfaction; SC ¼perceived sexual compatibility; SESII-A ¼arousability; SESII-S ¼setting; SESII-RI ¼rela-
tionship importance.
Table 2. Hierarchical regression analysis for sexual satisfaction.
Women Men
Variables BSEB bR
2
BSEB bR
2
Block 1 .19 .25
Age .67 .45 .12 .14 .34 .03
Relationship Duration .36 .44 .07 .48 .44 .09
Relationship Satisfaction 1.67 .32 .42
1.85 .27 .52
Block 2 .66 .75
Age .32 .30 .06 .16 .20 .04
Relationship Duration .09 .29 .02 .19 .26 .04
Relationship Satisfaction .37 .23 .09 .29 .18 .08
Perceived Sexual Compatibility 1.18 .09 .77
1.19 .07 .83
Arousability .63 .43 .08 .36 .38 .04
Setting .67 .49 .07 .79 .44 .08
Relationship Importance .09 .33 .02 .11 .29 .02
Note:
p<.05,
p<.01,
p<.001. R
2
based on Adjusted R
2
.
Sexual and Relationship Therapy 7
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky], [Kristen P. Mark] at 02:04 21 June 2013
Relationship Satisfaction. For women, the first block of the model was significant and
accounted for 16% of the variance, F(3, 132) ¼9.63, p<.001. In block two, after con-
trolling for age, relationship duration, and sexual satisfaction, perceived sexual compati-
bility significantly predicted relationship satisfaction and the model accounted for 20% of
the variance of relationship satisfaction, an increase of 4% from the previous model.
None of the difference scores measuring actual sexual compatibility were significant pre-
dictors; perceived sexual compatibility was the only significant predictor of relationship
satisfaction scores for women (b¼.28, p<.05). As scores on perceived sexual compati-
bility increased, women were more likely to report higher levels of relationship satisfac-
tion. Regression values for both blocks are displayed in Table 3.
For men, the first block of the model was significant and accounted for 26% of the
variance F(3, 132) ¼16.29, p<.001. In the second block of the model, after controlling
for age, relationship duration, and sexual satisfaction, perceived sexual compatibility sig-
nificantly predicted relationship satisfaction and the model accounted for 27% of the vari-
ance of relationship satisfaction, an increase of 1% from the previous model. None of the
difference scores measuring actual sexual compatibility were significant predictors; per-
ceived sexual compatibility was the only significant predictor of relationship satisfaction
scores for men (b¼.33, p<.05). As scores on perceived sexual compatibility increased
men were more likely to report higher levels of relationship satisfaction. See Table 3 for
regression values for both blocks of the model.
Discussion
The objective of the current study was to investigate the impact of sexual compatibility
on levels of sexual and relationship satisfaction within heterosexual romantic dyads.
Specifically, the current study examined the predictive value of both actual sexual com-
patibility (the compatibility of factors that impact arousal) and perceived sexual com-
patibility within a romantic dyad on women and men’s sexual and relationship
satisfaction.
Table 3. Hierarchical regression analysis for relationship satisfaction.
Women Men
Variables BSEB bR
2
BSEB bR
2
Block 1 .16 .26
Age .09 .11 .07 .09 .10 .08
Relationship Duration .06 .11 .05 .11 .12 .07
Sexual Satisfaction .11 .02 .43
.15 .02 .52
Block 2 .20 .27
Age .02 .11 .01 .09 .10 .07
Relationship Duration .02 .11 .02 .11 .12 .07
Sexual Satisfaction .05 .03 .21 .07 .04 .24
Perceived Sexual Compatibility .12 .05 .28
.13 .06 .33
Arousability .30 .16 .15 .17 .19 .07
Setting .08 .19 .03 .01 .21 .00
Relationship Importance .16 .12 .11 .09 .14 .05
Note:
p<.05,
p<.01,
p<.001. R
2
based on Adjusted R
2
.
8K.P. Mark et al.
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky], [Kristen P. Mark] at 02:04 21 June 2013
The current study was the first to explore the predictive power of two types of sexual
compatibility on both sexual and relationship satisfaction using partner difference
scores as an index of dyadic compatibility. Researchers have long suggested that to
understand the behaviour of one partner, it must be considered in the context of the other
member of the dyad (Kerr & Bowen, 1988), yet often satisfaction research is conducted
on an individual rather than a dyadic level (e.g., Birnbaum, 2007; Byers, 2005).
Consistent with the satisfaction literature (Apt et al., 1996a; Byers, 2001; Hurlbert &
Apt, 1994; Yeh et al., 2006), the current study found that greater levels of sexual satis-
faction were related to greater levels of relationship satisfaction in this sample.
Additionally, when one member of the couple was satisfied sexually and relationally,
the other member of the couple was also likely to report being satisfied. Perceived
sexual compatibility not only predicted sexual satisfaction levels, but also it did so
above and beyond relationship satisfaction and sexual compatibility. The same was true
for predicting relationship satisfaction; perceived sexual compatibility was the most
salient predictor of relationship satisfaction, over and above the impact of sexual satis-
faction and sexual compatibility.
Perceived sexual compatibility research has primarily focused on the extent to which
perceived compatibility impacts sexual satisfaction. Offman and Matheson (2005) used
dyadic analysis to explore the relationship between perceived sexual compatibility and a
number of outcome variables to measure sexual functioning, including sexual satisfac-
tion. They found that an individual’s perception and their partner’s perception of compati-
bility were predictive of sexual satisfaction. Results of the current study demonstrated
strong support for the relationship between perceived sexual compatibility and sexual sat-
isfaction (women’s b¼.76, men’s b¼.83). To add to the literature, results of the current
study provided support for the relationship between perceived sexual compatibility and
relationship satisfaction (women’s b¼.28, men’s b¼.33). Offman and Matheson
(2005) found that perceived sexual compatibility may be an index of intimacy, especially
for women, which may help to explain the predictive value of perceived sexual compati-
bility on relationship satisfaction.
Perceived sexual compatibility predicted satisfaction over and above the impact of
actual compatibility in terms of sexual preferences. This pattern of results indicates that
in terms of sexual compatibility, perception is a stronger predictor than compatibility of
specific turn-ons and turn-offs. These findings suggest that although a couple may not be
compatible in terms of factors that impact their arousal, if they perceive themselves to be
compatible, their satisfaction levels would likely not be altered. According to social con-
structionist theory, sexual behaviour is constructed through the environment in which the
individual exists (Giles, 2006), thus the perception of the world through the environment
is what is most important in any experience (Heath, 1995). In fact, the current finding that
the perception of compatibility is more important a predictor of satisfaction than actual
compatibility of turn-ons and turn-offs is supported by research in a number of disciplines
that demonstrate perceptions play a larger role in reality than reality itself (Etcheverry,
Le, & Charania, 2008; Heath, 1995; Merali, 2002). In addition, in many therapeutic con-
texts, perception is most important in dealing with couple problems and focus is placed
on these perceptions in therapy, not on the realities of the situation (Atwood & Dersho-
witz, 1992). These findings, jointly, seem to support the finding in the current study that
perceived sexual compatibility is more important to satisfaction levels than compatibility
of specific sexual preferences within a romantic dyad.
The current study used an innovative measure of sexual compatibility that consisted
of couple difference scores of three subscales of the SESII-W/M that measure
Sexual and Relationship Therapy 9
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky], [Kristen P. Mark] at 02:04 21 June 2013
propensities for excitation and inhibition of sexual arousal. The three subscales (Arous-
ability,Setting, and Relationship Importance) measure specific turn-ons and turn-offs
related to a number of factors that may impact arousal. Consistent with prior research
that has found that women are seen as less sexual than men and men have less diffi-
culty feeling and expressing sexual desire than women (O’Sullivan, 1995), when dis-
crepancies within couples occurred, men more often scored higher than women on the
measures of Arousability and Setting indicating that women are less easily aroused by
sexual stimuli and by engaging in sexual behaviour in unusual or unconcealed environ-
ments. Carpenter (2002) also found that men scored higher than women on three sub-
scales of the Sexual Excitation scale, which measured sexual arousal in response to
visual stimuli, social interactions, and non-specific stimuli. In the current study, when
discrepancies within a couple existed on the measure of Relationship Importance,
women scored higher than men. This indicates that women felt intimacy was more
important to their arousal than men did, which is consistent with women’s sexual
scripts that link love and sex (Barbach, 1982). In addition, Offman and Matheson
(2005) found that sexual satisfaction was related to emotional closeness for women,
but not for men.
In the current study, regardless of discrepant propensities for sexual excitation and
inhibition within couples, none of the three measures of sexual compatibility were signifi-
cant predictors of sexual or relationship satisfaction when perceived sexual compatibility
was entered into the model. Perceived sexual compatibility was the only significant pre-
dictor of both sexual and relationship satisfaction in the final block of all regression mod-
els. Interestingly, this finding is not congruent with research that has found that
discrepancies in other areas of sexual functioning (such as sexual desire) have a signifi-
cant negative impact on sexual satisfaction for both women and men (Davies et al., 1999;
Mark & Murray, 2012). Perhaps discrepancies of desire are more visible to the couple
than are turn-ons and turns offs. Members of the dyad are likely to be aware when their
partners do not initiate or are not receptive to sex, whereas they may choose not to com-
municate about the factors that inhibit and enhance their sexual arousal. Thus, desire dis-
crepancies may be more impactful on sexual and relationship satisfaction than actual
turn-ons and turn-offs.
Litzinger and Coop Gordon (2005) found that if a couple has strong communication
skills, the level of sexual satisfaction no longer contributes to the level of relationship sat-
isfaction. Perhaps perceived sexual compatibility in the current study is playing a similar
mediating role as communication such that provided the perception of sexual compatibil-
ity is intact, levels of sexual or relationship satisfaction no longer predict one another.
Additionally, Byers (2005) found that the relationship between sexual and relationship
satisfaction was dependent on initial levels of satisfaction. This study was cross-sectional
in nature and therefore no baseline measure of satisfaction was included.
Although this study contributes to the literature in a meaningful way, it is not with-
out limitations and results should be considered in context. The sample consisted of
primarily Caucasian (85.3%), heterosexual, young adults and the results may not be
generalizable to other racial identities, sexual orientations, and age groups. Some cau-
tion is necessary in the causal directions of the relations. While this study suggests that
sexual compatibility within the relationship may determine satisfaction levels, the
reverse may also be true, in that prior levels of satisfaction is also likely to influence
compatibility, in particular perceived compatibility. Also, the sample was very relation-
ally, emotionally, and physically satisfied in their current relationship. The limited vari-
ation in the measure of satisfaction limits the predictive ability of the model. Perhaps
10 K.P. Mark et al.
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky], [Kristen P. Mark] at 02:04 21 June 2013
different results would be found in a sample of couples with a greater range of satisfac-
tion levels.
One of the current research goals was to use an innovative measure of sexual com-
patibility to predict sexual and relationship satisfaction. The use of difference scores
has been criticized in prior research (see Edwards, 2001 for a review). Edwards (2001)
and Edwards and Harrison (1993) concluded that difference scores used as independent
variables may impose constraints that reduce the explained variance of those variables,
which may help to explain why this measure of compatibility did not play a large role
in predicting satisfaction levels in the current study. Although using difference scores
is a more conservative approach, it does not allow for examining differences that may
arise when one gender scores higher than the other when discrepancies occur. Perhaps
future research that is less exploratory in nature could utilize a more sophisticated mea-
sure of difference such as polynomial regression analysis. Also, the measure used to
assess sexual compatibility (the SESII) has not previously been used in research as a
measure of compatibility for couples. It has not been validated for use with couples
and this limits the validity of the findings. One of the SESII scales had a relatively low
Cronbach’s alpha that would compromise its ability to significantly predict sexual and
relationship satisfaction. Additionally, it would be beneficial for future research to
examine the impact of sexual compatibility in the framework of actor and partner
effects using a dyadic analysis model such as the Actor Partner Interdependence Model
(Cook & Kenny, 2005).
The findings of this study improve our understanding of the association between sex-
ual compatibility and sexual and relationship satisfaction in a sample of couples. Per-
ceived sexual compatibility, in particular, was consistently associated with sexual and
relationship satisfaction in both women and men. Further, using the SESII to measure sex-
ual compatibility is a unique and innovative approach to assess the extent to which a cou-
ple differs on specific turn-ons and turn-offs. The current study utilized both members of
the couple by taking the context of sexual compatibility within a dyad rather than relying
on one member of the couple’s contribution as previous studies have done (Hurlbert
et al., 1996; Hurlbert et al., 2000). Also, the data used for this study were collected
online, which has been found to reduce social desirability response bias, especially when
asking questions related to sexuality that may be sensitive in nature (Pealer, Weiler, Pigg,
Miller, & Dorman, 2001). Finally, this study is, to our knowledge, the first to include
measures of satisfaction, sexual compatibility in terms of factors that impact arousal, and
perceived sexual compatibility in a single model predicting sexual and relationship satis-
faction, enabling the examination of the relative importance of each. Although some stud-
ies have examined perceived sexual compatibility (Offman & Matheson, 2005; Smith
et al., 1993), these studies have not predicted sexual and relationship satisfaction, and
have not focused on any measure of compatibility specific to sexual preferences of the
couple such as the current measure of sexual compatibility related to factors that impact
arousal.
This study provides a more comprehensive assessment of the impact sexual compati-
bility has on sexual and relationship satisfaction. The current findings have implications
that support the continued use of focusing on perception in therapeutic settings. Based on
these findings, it seems the perception of compatibility is a more important predictor of
satisfaction within a dyad than concordance in terms of specific sexual preferences. Per-
haps sexual compatibility, especially perceived sexual compatibility, is one of the factors
contributing to the complexity of the relationship between sexual and relationship
satisfaction.
Sexual and Relationship Therapy 11
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky], [Kristen P. Mark] at 02:04 21 June 2013
Notes on contributors
Kristen P. Mark, PhD, MPH, is an assistant professor in the Department of Kinesiology and Health
Promotion at the University of Kentucky. Dr Mark’s research interests include sexual and relation-
ship satisfaction, sexual compatibility, sexual desire, desire discrepancies, and maintaining satisfy-
ing sex in long-term relationships.
Robin Milhausen, PhD, is an associate professor of Human Sexuality and Family Relations in the
Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition at the University of Guelph in Ontario,
Canada. Dr Milhausen’s program of research is focused on gender and sexuality, sexual desire and
arousal, and sexual health.
Scott B. Maitland, PhD, is an associate professor of Human Development in the Department of
Family Relations and Applied Nutrition at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada.
Dr Maitland’s program of research is focused on examining processes of change across the lifespan
in the substantive areas of personality, memory and cognition, and gambling and risk behaviors.
References
Apt, C., Hurlbert, D.F., Pierce, A.P., & White, C.L. (1996a). Relationship satisfaction, sexual char-
acteristics and the psychological well being of women. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexu-
ality,5, 195–210.
Apt, C., Hurlbert, D.F., Sarmiento, G.R., & Hurlbert, M.K. (1996b). The role of fellatio in marital
sexuality: An examination of sexual compatibility and sexual desire. Sexual and Marital Ther-
apy,11, 383–392.
Atwood, J.D., & Dershowitz, S. (1992). Constructing a sex and marital therapy frame: Ways to help
couples deconstruct sexual problems. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy,18, 196–218.
Barbach, L. (1982). For each other: Sharing sexual intimacy. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Birnbaum, G.E. (2007). Attachment orientations, sexual functioning, and relationship satisfaction in
a community sample of women. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,24, 21–35.
Brody, S. (2010). The relative health benefits of different sexual activities. Journal of Sexual Medi-
cine,7(4), 1336–1361.
Brody, S., & Weiss, P. (2011b). Simultaneous penile–vaginal intercourse orgasm is associated with
satisfaction. Journal of Sexual Medicine,8, 734–741.
Butzer, B., & Campbell, L. (2008). Adult attachment, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfac-
tion: A study of married couples. Personal Relationships,15, 141–154.
Byers, S.E. (2001). Evidence for the importance of relationship satisfaction in women’s sexual
functioning. Women & Therapy,20, 23–26.
Byers, S.E. (2005). Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: A longitudinal study of indi-
viduals in long-term relationships. Journal of Sex Research,42, 113–118.
Byers, S.E., & Demmons, S. (1999). Sexual satisfaction and sexual self-disclosure within dating
relationships. The Journal of Sex Research,36, 180–189.
Carpenter, D.L. (2002). The dual control model: Gender, sexual problems, and the prevalence of
sexual excitation and inhibition profiles (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana Univer-
sity, Indiana.
Cook, W.L., & Kenny, D.A. (2005). The Actor–Partner Interdependence Model: A model of bidi-
rectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
29, 101–109.
Costa, R.M., & Brody, S. (2007). Women’s relationship quality is associated with specifically
penile–vaginal intercourse orgasm and frequency. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy,33, 319–
327.
Croyle, K.L., & Waltz, J. (2002). Emotional awareness and couples’ relationship satisfaction.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,28, 435–444.
Cupach, W.R., & Comstock, J. (1990). Satisfaction with sexual communication in marriage: Links
to sexual satisfaction and dyadic adjustment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,7,
179–186.
Davies, S., Katz, J. & Jackson, J.L. (1999). Sexual desire discrepancies: Effects on sexual and rela-
tionship satisfaction in heterosexual dating couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior,28, 553–567.
Edwards, J.R. (2001). Ten difference score myths. Organizational Research Methods,4, 265–287.
12 K.P. Mark et al.
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky], [Kristen P. Mark] at 02:04 21 June 2013
Edwards, J.N., & Harrison, R.V. (1993). Job demands and worker health: Three-dimensional reex-
amination of the relationship between person-environment fit and strain. Journal of Applied
Psychology,78, 628–648.
Egeci, S.I., & Gencoz, T. (2006). Factors associated with relationship satisfaction: Importance of
communication skills. Contemporary Family Therapy,28, 383–391.
Ellis, A. (1953). Marriage counselling with couples indicating sexual incompatibility. Marriage and
Family Living,15, 53–59.
Etcheverry, P.E., Le, B., & Charania, M.R. (2008). Perceived versus reported social referent
approval and romantic relationship commitment and persistence. Personal Relationships,15,
281–295.
Fisher, T.D., & McNulty, J.K. (2008). Neuroticism and marital satisfaction: The mediating role
played by the sexual relationship. Journal of Family Psychology,22(1), 112–122.
Fowers, B.J., & Olson, D.H. (1989). ENRICH marital inventory: A discriminant validity and cross-
validation assessment. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy,15, 65–79.
Gattis, K.S., Berns, S., Simpson, L.E., & Christensen, A. (2004). Birds of a feather or strange birds?
Ties among personality dimensions, similarity, and marital quality. Journal of Family Psychol-
ogy,18, 564–574.
Giles, J. (2006). Social constructionism and sexual desire. Journal for the Theory of Social Behav-
iour,36, 225–238.
Heath, N.L. (1995). Distortion and deficit: Self-perceived versus actual academic competence in
depressed and nondepressed children with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabil-
ities Research and Practice,10, 2–10.
Heino, J., & Ojanlatva, A. (2000). Healthy reciprocity in sexual interaction. Patient Education and
Counseling,39, 169–175.
Hudson, W., Harrison, D. & Crosscup, P. (1981). A short-form scale to measure sexual discord in
dyadic relationships. Journal of Sex Research,17, 157–174.
Hunsley, J., Pinsent, C., Lefebvre, M., James-Tanner, S., & Vito, D. (1995). Construct validity of
the short forms of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Family Relations,44, 231–237.
Hurlbert, D.F. & Apt, C. (1994). Female sexual desire, response, and behavior. Behavior Modifica-
tion,18, 488–504.
Hurlbert, D.F., Apt, C., Hurlbert, M.K., & Pierce, A.P. (2000). Sexual compatibility and the sexual
desire–motivation relation in females with hypoactive sexual desire disorder. Behavior Modifi-
cation,24, 325–347.
Hurlbert, D.F., Apt, C., & Rabehl, S.M. (1993). Key variables to understanding female sexual satis-
faction: An examination of women in non-distressed marriages. Journal of Sex & Marital Ther-
apy,19, 154–165.
Hurlbert, D.F., Apt, C., & Rombough, S. (1996). The female experience of sexual desire as a function
of sexual compatibility in an intimate relationship. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality,5,
7–14.
Johnson, A.M., Wadsworth, J., Wellings, K., & Field, J. (1994). Sexual attitudes and lifestyles.
London: Blackwell.
Katz, S., & Marshall, B. (2003). New sex for old: Lifestyle consumerism, and the ethics of aging
well. Journal of Aging Studies,17, 3–16.
Kenny, D.A. (1996). Models of non-independence in dyadic research. Journal of Social and Per-
sonal Relationships,13, 279–294.
Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A., & Cook, W.L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Kerr, M.E., & Bowen, M. (1988). Family evolution. New York: Norton.
Klusmann, D. (2002). Sexual motivation and the duration of partnership. Archives of Sexual Behav-
ior,31, 275–287.
Klusmann, D. (2002). Sexual motivation and the duration of partnership. Archives of Sexual Behav-
ior,31, 275–287.
Litzinger, S., & Coop Gordon, K. (2005). Exploring relationships among communication,
sexual satisfaction, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy,31,
409–424.
Lubatkin, A.H., Vengroff, R., Ndiaye, M., & Veiga, J.F. (1999). Managerial work and management
reform in Senegal: The influence of hierarchy and sector. American Review of Public Adminis-
tration,29, 240–268.
Sexual and Relationship Therapy 13
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky], [Kristen P. Mark] at 02:04 21 June 2013
Mark, K.P., & Murray, S.H. (2012). Gender differences in desire discrepancy as a predictor of sex-
ual and relationship satisfaction in a college sample of heterosexual romantic relationships.
Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy,38, 198–215.
McCabe, M.P. (1999). The interrelationship between intimacy, relational functioning, and sexuality
among men and women in committed relationships. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality,
8, 31–38.
Merali, N. (2002). Perceived versus actual parent–adolescent assimilation disparity among Hispanic
refugee families. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling,24, 57–68.
Meyerson, P., & Tryon, W.W. (2003). Validating Internet research: A test of the psychometric
equivalence of Internet and in-person samples. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers,35(4), 614–620.
Milhausen, R.R. (2004). Factors that inhibit and enhance sexual arousal in college men and women
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Indiana.
Milhausen, R.R., Graham, C.A., Sanders, S.A., Yarber, W.L., & Maitland, S.D. (2010). Validation
of the sexual excitation/sexual inhibition inventory for women and men. Archives of Sexual
Behavior,39, 1091–1104.
Murray, S.H., & Milhausen, R.R. (2012). Sexual desire and relationship duration in young men and
women. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy,38, 28–40.
Mustanski, B.S. (2001). Getting wired: Exploiting the Internet for the collection of valid sexuality
data. Journal of Sex Research,38, 292–301.
Nicolosi, A., Moreira, E.D., Villa, M., & Glasser, D.B. (2004). A population study of the association
between sexual function, sexual satisfaction and depressive symptoms in men. Journal of Affec-
tive Disorders,82, 235–243.
Offman, A., & Matheson, K. (2005). Sexual compatibility and sexual functioning in intimate rela-
tionships. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality,14, 31–39.
O’Sullivan, L.F. (1995). Less is more: The effects of sexual experience on judgments of men’s and
women’s personality characteristics and relationship desirability. Sex Roles,33, 159–181.
Pealer, L.N., Weiler, R.M., Pigg, R.M., Miller, D., & Dorman, S.M. (2001). The feasibility of a
web-based surveillance system to collect health risk behaviour data from college students.
Health Education and Behavior,28, 547–559.
Philippsohn, S., & Hartmann, U. (2009). Determinants of sexual satisfaction in a sample of German
women. Journal of Sexual Medicine,6, 1001–1010.
Purifoy, F.E., Grodsky, A., & Gimbra, L.M. (1992). The relationship of sexual day dreaming to sex-
ual activity, sexual drive, and sexual attitudes for women across the life-span. Archives of Sex-
ual Behavior,21, 369–375.
Purnine, D.M. & Carey, M.P. (1997). Interpersonal communication and sexual adjustment: The
roles of understanding and agreement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,65,
1017–1025.
Schnarch, D.M. (1991). Construction of the sexual crucible: An integration of sexual and marital
therapy. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Smith, E.R., Becker, M.A., Byren, D., & Przybyla, D.P. (1993). Sexual attitudes of males and
females as predictors of interpersonal attraction and marital compatibility. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology,23, 1011–1034.
Smith, C.S., & Tisak, J. (1993). Discrepancy measures of role stress revisited: New perspectives on
old issues. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,56, 285–307.
Spanier, G.B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of mar-
riage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family,38, 15–25.
Sprecher, S. (2002). Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships: Associations with satisfaction,
love, commitment, and stability. The Journal of Sex Research,39, 190–196.
Tao, P., & Brody, S. (2011). Sexual behavior predictors of satisfaction in a Chinese sample. Journal
of Sexual Medicine,8, 455–460.
Tisak, J., & Smith, C.S. (1994). Defending and extending difference score methods. Journal of
Management,20, 691–694.
Yeh, H.C., Lorenz, F.O., Wickrama, K.A.S., Conger, R.D., & Elder, G.H. (2006). Relationships
among sexual satisfaction, marital quality, and marital instability at midlife. Journal of Family
Psychology,20, 339–343.
14 K.P. Mark et al.
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky], [Kristen P. Mark] at 02:04 21 June 2013
